Barney v. Earle
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to tbe Circuit Court of Mareugo. Tried before tbe Hon. Greorge G-oldth waite. Assumpsit by tbe defendant in error. Tbe declaration contained two counts, tbe first on a lost promissory note, and tbe second, indebitatus assumpsit. There was a demurrer to the first count, which was sustained by tbe court below, and tbe parties went to trial on tbe second.
Read the full summary
Error to tbe Circuit Court of Mareugo. Tried before tbe Hon. Greorge G-oldth waite. Assumpsit by tbe defendant in error. Tbe declaration contained two counts, tbe first on a lost promissory note, and tbe second, indebitatus assumpsit. There was a demurrer to the first count, which was sustained by tbe court below, and tbe parties went to trial on tbe second. On that trial tbe plaintiff offered Henry A. Skinner as a witness, who being objected to by tbe defendant, on tbe score of interest in tbe result of tbe suit, was examined on bis voire dire. When thus examined be stated, “that at tbe time…
1Opinion of the CourtLicion, J.
The only question for our determination is, did the court below err, in allowing the witness Skinner to testify for the plaintiff?
To ascertain this, it will be necessary for us to examine the rights and liabilities of the parties in this transaction, as they are shown in the examination of the witness on his voire dire, and in his testimony in chief.
First. It appears from these, that Barney and the witness were partners, and for the purchase of goods necessary for, and properly appertaining to, the business of the partnership, the witness makes a negotiable note, in the name of the firm, to a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Lewis v. PostSupreme Court of Alabama · 1840
- McCall v. SinclairSupreme Court of Alabama · 1848
3Cited by1 opinion
- Browning v. KellySupreme Court of Alabama · 1899